E-lobby regarding rural crimes officer discrimination

[starr shot]

Think your example is stretching it, isn’t it @starr shot ?

The CoP is guidance, down to an individual, leader, organisation to chose to follow it and most importantly - interpret it. WiltsPol have clearly chosen to interpret it that the appointment fell into this guidance.

TBH, it’s more about being aware and thinking ahead and not placing yourself in the position to be seen to be impartial. Used to be called common sense, which seemed to diminish in recruits over the years of my service. It’s a tightrope I tried to walk for 27 years. I didn’t get it right every time - no one who carries a warrant card does - but did try to use my head.

Having any relationship (real or perceived), with an organisation that has been excluded from its sports association is not what I would suggest is making a sensible decision based on common sense - then having a light bulb moment and thinking, I’ll be a rural crime officer???

You can think it, participate if you have assessed the potential consequences, but FFS don’t shout about it by posting pictures of you riding with the Hunt in question, and expect zero fall out.

Simply put, as a police officer, doing things that can be perceived to be partial often has the same effect as an actual bias. It’s not always right, not received well by, or often fair on the person subject to the accusation - but that’s the nature of the job. Your personal life IS CURTAILED by being a police officer. That’s part of the gig.

I’m no fan of the CoP or it’s predecessor in terms of setting standards, but they do sometimes get it right. In this case, their guidance, on the balance of probabilities, just scrapes a pass.

Yes Wilks I was stretching it.But it would appear that the person removed was removed because Antis were shouting again,surely it’s upto the police who does what job and if there is no evidence of wrong doing or favour on the behalf of the officer in question they must be left to get on with their job.

 

[Franchi Matt]

Police policing the police in true police style.

 

[3595wilk]

Yes Wilks I was stretching it.But it would appear that the person removed was removed because Antis were shouting again,surely it’s upto the police who does what job and if there is no evidence of wrong doing or favour on the behalf of the officer in question they must be left to get on with their job.

In an ideal world yes, you would be right. But we don’t live in one and definitely don’t police in one.

As said, public scrutiny of your actions while carrying out your role and also of your private life is part of the job - and sometimes you are supported, other times you aren’t and feel wronged……even when you know and the decision maker knows you did nothing wrong…..been there, felt that.

This means, perception as well as fact is an important consideration in making decisions within this area. It may seem unfair - but that’s the reality, and doesn’t matter what the motivation may be that started the situation, unless it’s a vexatious complaint - and this may have started as one - but it’s gone beyond that.

It’s something that most people don’t get to experience so it’s hard to understand - but is something that all emergency service staff have to live with to a degree; and policing probably the most.

A reasonable person would think there is something partisan potentially, in appointing a person who MAY be a hunt supporter, into a role dealing with hunting matters.

From the general public’s point of view, not just anti-hunt protesters, the snapshot presented in this case means the optics are terrible. That is what really counts nowadays.

WiltsPol response clearly suggests they have thought along these lines too…a quote from a WiltsPol spokesperson is below.

“……The new framework will provide more scrutiny around the suitability of our officers, staff and volunteers to work within the unit. It sets out key principles to ensure staff do not have personal links to hunts past or present, do not have links to any anti-hunt groups past or present and requires staff disclose links to any rural based hobby or initiative that could potentially call into question their policing impartiality……”

 

[deerpath]

Done